This sheet examines the pros and cons associated with
the three most commonly-used full representation systems
in the United States: limited voting, cumulative voting (in its two
major variations) and choice voting.

Summary: Choice voting promotes fair representation, allowing minority and majority perspectives to win
representation in proportion to their relative voting strengths. Although best
accompanied by a straightforward voter eduction effort, choice voting is an easy
system for voters and reduces demands for complex voting strategies like
bullet-voting. Limited voting and cumulative voting are
not as certain to represent voters fairly, but still have clear advantages over
the winner-take-all election system.

Limited Voting. Like the other systems described in
this factsheet, limited voting uses multi-seat electoral districts -- meaning
districts that elect two or more representatives to a legislature. With limited
voting, voters have fewer voters than there are seats. For example, in a
five-seat district, each voter might be allowed to cast two votes, and the
winners are the five candidates who receive the highest totals of votes. With
limited voting, the fewer votes each voter has, the more likely political
minorities will win fair representation – when voters are limited to one vote,
the victory threshold is as low as it is with cumulative voting and choice
voting.

Pros

both casting and counting ballots in limited voting is simple and easy

permits majority rule and is more minority representation than "winner take all"

Cons

can fall short of full representation due to vote-splitting

constituencies or parties must limit the number of
candidates they run or risk splitting their vote, leading to
under-representation

the nominating process can be open to manipulation by party leaders and a primary may be necessary to ensure fair representation

more difficult to form electoral coalitions – both
among like-minded candidates and among different political groupings --
than with choice voting

Cumulative Voting (free version). In free cumulative
voting, voters have the same number of votes as there are seats in a multi-seat
district. Voters can allocate their votes in any manner they choose, be it one
vote each to several candidates or multiple votes to one highly favored
candidate. Pooling
votes on one candidate allows voters in a political minority to express
a strong preference for their candidate. Winners are the highest
vote-getters (plurality).

Pros

relatively simple for voters to understand.

ballot counting is straightforward on most
voting equipment

permits majority rule and more minority representation than "winner take all"

Cons

vote-splitting can distort representation – for
example, like-minded voters might split their votes among two
candidates, causing both to lose, or they might concentrate their
ballots on only one candidate even though they had enough votes to
elect two candidates

the problem of vote splitting encourages parties/organizations to limit their nominations

strategic voting becomes important, and it is necessary to manage voters to make sure they allocate their ballots correctly

it is more difficult to form electoral coalitions than with choice voting or equal and even cumulative voting

Cumulative Voting (equal and even). The equal and
even form of cumulative voting – also known as the Peoria model -- acts much
like free cumulative voting with one important difference: votes are allocated
equally among the candidates chosen by a voter. For instance, if a voter has
five votes and votes for two candidates, each candidate receives 2.5 votes.
Winners are the highest vote-getters (plurality).Pros

shares most of the advantages of free cumulative
voting system, including relative ease of use and of administration and
more minority representation than with "winner take all"

allows voters to limit number of candidates they support without losing voting power

easier for parties/organizations to run slates of candidates than free cumulative voting

Cons

is more complex to explain than either limited voting or free cumulative voting

the problem of split votes still exists, and
parties/organizations must still be careful to limit the number of
candidates they nominate/support

more difficult to form coalitions than with choice voting

Choice Voting –
Choice voting (also known as preference voting, the single transferable
vote and the Hare system) allows voters to rank candidates in order of
preference: one for their favorite candidate, two for their second
favorite, and so on. Candidates earn election when they reach the
victory threshold. For instance, in a nine-seat district, a candidate must earn about 10%
of the vote to earn one seat and a political party / slate needs more than 50%
of the vote to win a five-seat majority.

To determine winners, ballots are counted in a series
of rounds of elections. First-choices are counted, and any candidate
who reaches the victory threshold is elected. In the next round,
"surplus votes" – those votes beyond the victory threshold obtained by
any winning candidate -- are counted for the second choices of voters
as indicated by their ballots (for fairness, all ballots are counted
for second choice candidates at an equally reduced value). If not all
seats are filled at this point, as is typical, then the candidate with
the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are
counted for the candidate listed next on each voter’s ballot. These
rounds of election continue until all seats are filled or the number of
remaining candidates equals the number of seats.

Pros

choice is a fully proportional voting system and
likely to ensure both majority rule and fair representation of
political minorities.

voters’ ballots are used efficiently, with most voters having the same number of effective votes (votes that elect someone)

designed to ensure that as many voters as possible elect a preferred candidate.

the role for the voter is simple -- ranking candidates in order of preference, 1, 2, 3 etc.

encourages coalition-building among allied groupings hoping to be ranked highly by supporters of the other grouping

most adaptable of alternative systems to demographic shifts in the electorate

since a lower ranking can never defeat a higher
ranking, there is no incentive to limit the number of candidates, to
bullet-vote, or to manipulate the order of rankings

no need for primary elections or runoffs

Cons

vote counting mechanism is difficult to explain --
voter education is necessary to ensure that voters understand the
importance of ranking candidates

complexity of count can lead to perceptions of
manipulation of the system that can taint the process, even if based on
misconceptions

ballot counting often requires the modification of
current election administration, possibly including the purchase of new
voting systems and ballot-counting software

requires like-minded candidates to compete amongst
one another for first-choice votes – essentially combining primary
election competition and general election competition in a single round
of voting

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.